Introduction
BCI (Blue City Index) | Categorisation of IWRM in cities |
---|---|
0–2 |
Cities lacking basic water services
|
Access to potable drinking water of sufficient quality and access to sanitation facilities are insufficient. Typically, water pollution is high due to a lack of wastewater treatment (WWT). Solid waste production is relatively low but is only partially collected and, if collected, almost exclusively put in landfills. Water consumption is low, but water system leakages are high due to serious infrastructure investment deficits. Basic water services cannot be expanded or improved due to rapid urbanisation. Improvements are hindered due to governance capacity and funding gaps. | |
2–4 |
Wasteful cities
|
Basic water services are largely met, but flood risk can be high and WWT is poorly covered. Often, only primary and a small portion of secondary WWT is applied, leading to large scale pollution. Water consumption and infrastructure leakages are high due to the lack of environmental awareness and infrastructure maintenance. Solid waste production is high, and waste is almost completely dumped in landfills. Governance is reactive and community involvement is low. | |
4–6 |
Water-efficient cities
|
Cities implementing centralised, well-known, technological solutions to increase water efficiency and to control pollution. Secondary WWT coverage is high and the share of tertiary WWT is rising. Water-efficient technologies are partially applied, infrastructure leakages are substantially reduced, but water consumption is still high. Energy recovery from WWT is relatively high while nutrient recovery is limited. Both solid waste recycling and energy recovery are partially applied. These cities are often vulnerable to climate change, e.g., urban heating and drainage flooding, due to poor adaptation strategies, stormwater separation and limited green surface ratios. Governance and community involvement has improved. | |
6–8 |
Resource efficient and adaptive cities
|
WWT techniques to recover energy and nutrients are often applied. Solid waste recycling and energy recovery are largely covered whereas solid waste production has not yet been reduced. Water efficient techniques are widely applied and water consumption has been reduced. Climate adaptation in urban planning is applied e.g., incorporation of green infrastructures and stormwater separation. Integrative, (de)centralised and long-term planning, community involvement, and sustainability initiatives are established to cope with limited resources and climate change. | |
8–10 |
Water-wise cities
|
There is no city scored within this category so far. These cities apply full resource and energy recovery in their WWT and solid waste treatment, fully integrate water planning and urban planning, have multi-functional and adaptive infrastructures, and local communities promote sustainable integrated decision-making and behaviour. Cities are largely water self-sufficient, attractive, innovative and circular by applying multiple (de)centralised solutions. |
Methodology
The selection of cities in Asia
City | Population sizea | Average urbanisation rate 2000–2016 (% Year−1)b | GDP per capita (current US$)c |
---|---|---|---|
Ahmedabad | 3,719,710 | +2.37 | 1939.6 |
Bandung | 1,699,719 | +2.27 | 3846.9 |
Bangkok | 5,104,476 | +1.73 | 6593.8 |
Hohhot | 774,477 | +2.42 | 8827.0 |
Ho Chi Minh City | 3,467,331 | +2.98 | 2343.1 |
Jakarta | 9,607,787 | +2.27 | 3846.9 |
Taipei | 7,871,900 | +0.80 | 8827.0 |
Tianjin | 11,090,314 | +2.42 | 8827.0 |
Manila | 1,600,000 | +1.99 | 2989.0 |
Seoul | 10,349,312 | +0.30 | 29,742.8 |
Singapore | 3,547,809 | +1.39 | 57,714.3 |
Trends and Pressures Framework (TPF)
The City Blueprint Framework (CBF)
The Governance Capacity Framework (GCF)
Results
Case Selection: Comparison of Social, Environmental and Financial Settings in Asian Cities
Overview of IWRM Practices in Asian Cities
Governance Capacity to Address Flood Risk
Ahmedabad
Bandung
Taipei
Discussion
Method Validity and Limitations
The Transformation Trajectory of Asian’s Urban Water Management
Municipal Solid Waste and Wastewater Challenges
The Role of Community Movements in Alleviating Basic Water Services in Slums
Conclusion
-
The main enablers reside in adequate education and good governance: ‘before fixing the urban water pipes, fix the institutions.' (OECD 2016). In Asia, this specifically includes the need for proper monitoring, cross-stakeholder learning, implementation and enforcement as well as sufficient room for new initiatives (Table 4).
-
This study in Asian cities reconfirms our earlier observations that water challenges form a cross-cutting issue that require a holistic rather than a sectorial approach in order to create co-benefits and win-wins (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2017). Defragmentation of institutions may play a key role again.
-
Based on the governance capacity analysis of flood risk management in the cities of Ahmedabad, Bandung and Taipei, we conclude that improvements in both the statutory compliance and policy evaluation processes can be considered as key priorities as well.
-
Proper IWRM is often hindered by low performance in solid waste collection and recycling leading to clogging of sewers, and subsequently to high risks of both flooding (after heavy rain events) and water scarcity (as water reuse requires proper collection and treatment of wastewater). Thus, proper IWRM should encompass adequate solid waste management.
-
IWRM in slum areas is of particular importance for Asia’s rapidly expanding cities. Here, citizen engagement is an important precondition for their sustainability and resilience. Improvements can only be realised through inclusive local decision-making and long-term commitment. In particular, access to basic water services, solid waste management and various forms of centralised and decentralised wastewater treatment can be considered as focal areas.